Newt Gingrich is likely going to run for president in 2008. I hope and pray he wins the Republican nomination, as his defeat in the general would be all but a certainty, but it strikes me as unlikely.
Anyway, he describes his proposed energy policy on this page, and it includes a rather baffling misunderstanding that seems common in conservative circles:
The Bush administration's investment in developing hydrogen energy resources may be the biggest breakthrough of the next half-century. Hydrogen has the potential to provide energy that has no environmental downside. In one stroke a hydrogen economy would eliminate both air pollution and global warming concerns. Since hydrogen is abundant in the air and water around us, it eliminates both the national security and foreign exchange problems associated with petroleum.
Uh.
Hydrogen, for those of you who missed both Chem 101 and Physics 101, does not "provide" energy. It is present in the "air and water around us," yes, but it doesn't particularly want to come out of the air and water. Getting it out requires quite a bit of energy. In effect, we use hydrogen to store that energy. It's true that the energy to extract hydrogen won't come from oil, but given our current balance of electricity generation, and the love of Big Coal evinced by the powers-that-be, hydrogen is likely to shift the energy burden from oil to coal. That will not, suffice to say, "eliminate both air pollution and global warming concerns." Quite the opposite.
To his credit, Newt pushes conservation and efficiency pretty hard, unlike his buddies in the executive branch. But that's about the best that can be said about his energy spiel.
(via Cut Oil Imports)
Comments
View as Flat
kmp Posted 7:00 am
13 Jul 2006
Permalink
Ronald Rutherford Posted 3:21 am
14 Jul 2006
We could do a survey of all congress people that have such information on their web site.
How about GM web site:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/fc_milestones.html
"April 1, 2005: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton joined GM and the U.S. military for the unveiling and ceremonial delivery of a GM fuel cell-powered pickup truck built for the U.S. military. Developing partnerships with customers like the U.S. military, whose goals match GM's, will advance a hydrogen economy, help gain real-world experience with hydrogen and fuel cells and create the potential for additional future joint transportation ventures with the military."
And Hillary:
"The United States was, in the past, the world leader in what's called "alternative energy," which I like to call "smart energy" because that's what it is: it's smart, it's clean, it's productive. There's no reason we should not be the leader in smart energy technology again. Twenty years ago, US firms had 80 percent of the fuel cell market. Now fuel cells are finally hitting the big time. Japan is going so far as to begin the construction of model hydrogen stations. I went to Iceland last summer with John McCain to look at their hydrogen economy. They're committed to being the first all-hydrogen economy combined by geo-thermal so they totally can begin to wean themselves off fossil fuels. But now the US market share of that technology, just when it's beginning to take off, has dropped to 20 percent."
Aspen
Permalink
kmp Posted 4:23 am
14 Jul 2006
From a story on hydrogen cars hitting the road by 2015:
Hydrogen will also cut down on greenhouses gases, its advocates say, because only water comes out of the tailpipe. However, manufacturing hydrogen, which involves combining methane with water and heating up the mix to 815 degrees Celsius, produces 9.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every kilogram of hydrogen. Some companies are tinkering with ways of sequestering manufactured carbon dioxide in underground caves and other storage facilities to keep it from getting into the atmosphere.
Hillary, on the other hand, quotes specific references about the US market in fuel cell technology; more than singing the praises of hydrogen, she is saying we should not miss the boat on this one, and let Japan reap all the economic rewards, much as they have done in the automobile industry.
I don't see how the statements compare.
Kaela
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:24 am
14 Jul 2006
Better to get a candidate that stands on principle. Your favorites have zero principles, excepting maybe "me first".
Congrats to you all on oil prices, really nice scamming in the ME to boost the profits of GOP corporate sponsors.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:53 am
14 Jul 2006
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion without exhaust gas
Permalink
mihan Posted 5:13 am
14 Jul 2006
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:39 am
14 Jul 2006
Non-biological non-fossil-fuel methods of pulling hydrogen from water have been tried (search on "sulfur-iodine process" or "sulphur-iodine process" for one) and if fed their process heat by solar concentrators, they should make several hundred times more hydrogen than a fuel crop with the same area as the concentrator.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion without exhaust gas
Permalink
Ronald Rutherford Posted 7:56 am
14 Jul 2006
"The attack was not on hydrogen fuel as a viable future fuel source.."
That's the point no matter if you say fuel cell or hydrogen powered it is not a fuel source and once people get that stupid notion out of their head the better we will be.
And as amazing said: "It's all pandering."
So just be honest and eveluate both sides of the aisle in the same framework.
"Hillary, on the other hand, quotes specific references about the US market in fuel cell technology; more than singing the praises of hydrogen, she is saying we should not miss the boat on this one, and let Japan reap all the economic rewards, much as they have done in the automobile industry."
What miss the boat on what, an energy storage system that may not fit into the future energy sources?
My above link came from:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/york220805.html
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:11 pm
14 Jul 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink